Case Law Details
Krishnan Sivaprasad Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Introduction: In the recent case of Krishnan Sivaprasad vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore ordered a re-adjudication due to the assessee’s lack of familiarity with the ITBA portal. The case primarily addressed the appellant’s challenges against the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s (NFAC) order and the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer.
Analysis: The ITAT order empathized with the appellant’s rural background and unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal, which resulted in non-compliance with the NFAC notices. Despite the various grounds raised by the appellant against the original order, including allegations of jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, and procedural discrepancies, the ITAT focused on providing a fair chance for representation before the NFAC. By remitting the case back to NFAC, the ITAT has shown its commitment to ensuring justice is served, irrespective of the digital competency of the involved parties.
Conclusion: This decision by the ITAT Bangalore sets an important precedent in cases where rural and less digitally literate taxpayers are involved. It underlines the necessity of providing a level playing field to all assessees and highlights the need for inclusivity in the age of digitalization.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 213.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds:
1. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Mangalore (Learned Officer), as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (the CIT(A)) to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case
2. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction;
3. The order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is bad in law and liable to be quashed;
4. The ‘Learned CITOA has erred in law and on facts in not considering the submissions of the Appellant;
5. The Learned CITOA has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance/submission, without adjudicating on merits considering the documents available on the records;
6. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 11,00,000/-as short-term capital gains;
7. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in denying the benefit of exemption to agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 84,66,000/- by treating the same as income from other sources;
8. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the nature of activities and circumstances under which the Assessee has undertaken his activities;
9. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in imposing conditions that are not prevalent under the statute.
10.The Order that is based on presumptions and surmises is bad in law and liable to be quashed in its entirety;
11.The order is unreasonably high-pitched and therefore liable to be quashed in its entirety;
12. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act;
13. The Learned Officer has erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act;
14. The Le !Tied Officer has erred in law by levying interest under section 234A/B of the Act;
(Total tax;(effect: Rs. 26,86,613/-)
2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. submitted on ground No.3 that NFAC issued a notice to the assessee which is not complied by the assessee in view of the fact that assessee is from rural background and not conversant with the ITBA portal and failed to submit the necessary details before the NFAC and prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be granted and he prayed that all the issues may be remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration.
3. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of NFAC.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, various notices were issued by the NFAC which were not complied by the assessee. It was explained by the ld. A.R. that it is due to their poor knowledge about ITBA portal. In our opinion, it is appropriate vacate the order of NFAC and remit the issue to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have already remitted the issue to the file of NFAC, we refrain from commenting anything on the merit of the issues raised before us.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2023
